Release dates

[Indra]

I don't see people mass contributing low-level release dates as an issue. As we've experienced in MG, sooner or later someone will contribute better information. At least a warning sight (e.g. a read circle warning) should warn people that this release date would be of questionable accuracy. Better to be honest and not know, rather to claim otherwise, internet public-relations speaking.

Also, if you want to be hardcore, a better release date will nullify the points given of a previously lower level release date, which I consider to be a just system. Unless one is a spoiled brat. :p Kinda reminds me of that one dude who whined that points aren't high enough (hence his low MG points). The European bots with 50,000 points or more obviously laughed in his face. :p

Also part of the reason of this system is due to the huge mental burden on approvers in the MG approval system. It really shouldn't be an approvers job to fact-check everything in existence (especially on a volunteer-based commitment), no one is that good an expert and also the primary the reason as to why stuff may take months if not years to approve in MG. Dubious source? Uh, skip entry.

[MZ per X]

I wouldn't even give points (or very little for level 1 sources) since it's only linking to another website without any research actually done...

Since IMHO our lowest reward should be for correcting a typo in a text, such sources should also yield some reward. But as you say, not much.

At least a warning sight (e.g. a read circle warning) should warn people that this release date would be of questionable accuracy. Better to be honest and not know, rather to claim otherwise, internet public-relations speaking.

The sources for all our data will be publicly available, I think. But despite this, we should rate sources based on your level system, if for people eager to replace bad sources alone.

Also, if you want to be hardcore, a better release date will nullify the points given of a previously lower level release date, which I consider to be a just system.

Oh no, we shouldn't do this. Every contribution helps, and I think we can't afford to piss off contributors this way.

Dubious source? Uh, skip entry.

This problem should be lightened by publishing the source. If the source is not blatantly wrong, then rate it and approve it. Everybody can make up their own mind about the source later on, and search for a replacement if the itch scratches.

[jotaroraido]

Somewhat tangential, but would anyone have any objections to adding an "Unknown" category to the company roles list? Often the only way to get a complete list of the companies involved in a game is through the credits, and quite often the contributing companies are all lumped together at the end of the credits. You might have the main developer, several graphics contractors, a scenario writing studio, a sound and music contractor, a recording studio, several middleware providers, some licensed-property rights holders, and the publisher's QA satellite office all listed simply under "cooperating companies", with no way to tell who did what without combing through the credits and finding the exact people and roles attached to each company (if they're even listed). "Unknown" would let us associate these companies to a release without necessarily knowing exactly what they did.

[idrougge]

On the same tangent, does anyone have an objection to introducing the company "not a company" for PD games and so on?

[jotaroraido]

On the same tangent, does anyone have an objection to introducing the company "not a company" for PD games and so on?

Something like Discogs' "Not On Label" label? That would be useful for maintaining consistency of data -- to specify that a game was not developed or published by a company, rather than that the developer or publisher is simply unknown.

[MZ per X]

Somewhat tangential, but would anyone have any objections to adding an "Unknown" category to the company roles list?

On the same tangent, does anyone have an objection to introducing the company "not a company" for PD games and so on?

We will need both of this, so I added it to the data model. The release table has a boolean called "No Companies Involved" now, and "Unknown" was added to the company roles.

Thanks!